Israel’s Mideast Message

By Dr Maisa Al Masri

“This is a message to the entire Middle East,” Israeli Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana said in response to the Israeli airstrike that targeted Hamas leaders in the heart of the Qatari capital, Doha.

However, this statement is not merely a comment on the military operation strike into a declared strategic message, telling the entire region, and primarily the Gulf, that Israel, in partnership with Washington, has become the master of the decision-making process in the region.

Ohana’s statement is an explicit and direct threat that leaves no room for interpretation,  reflecting the new deterrence doctrine adopted by Tel Aviv: No red lines, no geographical immunities, and no Western allies outside the confines of Israeli dictates. Simply put, anyone who disagrees with us becomes a legitimate target, even if they are in the heart of a friendly capital that hosts the largest American military base.

This makes for a dangerous conclusion: Israel no longer views the Gulf states as partners in stability, but rather as “open arenas for fiery messages.” Washington is blessing the silence, participating in complicity, and mocking the Arabs.

Naked dominance

And don’t forget the Israeli crime in the heart of the Gulf marks the beginning of a new era of naked dominance. It’s not a traditional security operation, but a pivotal turning point in the rules of regional engagement, in which Qatar has been embarrassed both on the Arab level and internationally.

Israel has now publicly placed itself in a circle (no longer concealing its intentions) – through bombing and military strikes – that it no longer sees a distinction between political geography and the theater of operations. More dangerously, the heart of the Gulf today has become openly subject to Tel Aviv’s fire. And who can challenge it?

The strike wasn’t an intelligence leak or a silent targeting, but a direct airstrike in an area teeming with embassies, schools, and residential buildings, in a country that is a major ally of Washington and a pillar of American security in the Middle East.

Thus the message has become clear to everyone: No one is above attack… no state, no sovereignty, no partnership.

The US administration, led by Donald Trump, evaded with a series of conflicting statements about its prior knowledge of the operation. But whether it knew and blessed it, knew and remained silent, knew too late, or did not know at all, the outcome is the same: The American cover was removed, Gulf confidence eroded, and billions perished. The statements of the US embassy in Doha did not go beyond expressions of caution to American citizens, while White House statements swayed between “regret over the location” to “understanding the goal of eliminating terrorism.”

I believe the opposite message was conveyed to the Gulf capitals: Your security is not a priority, and your sovereignty does not equate to a clear position from Washington. The question that now arises however is: Why Qatar? Why now? Why was the strike carried out in Qatar and not in Turkey, or Iran for example? This is despite the fact that the Hamas leaders that were targeted had just returned from Istanbul, suggesting Tel Aviv chose the location not arbitrarily but with deep political awareness. Tel Aviv did not pull the trigger in Istanbul, even though the targeted leaders passed through it only hours earlier.

Turkey, with all its military, political, and international complexity, is not a testing ground for Israeli madness. There are red lines that even Tel Aviv dares not cross… and Turkey is one of them. The potential Turkish military response, the internal Turkish explosion during a highly sensitive election season, and the delicate balance of power within NATO rendered Turkish territory “operationally closed” even to the most violent wings of Israeli decision-making. But when the targeted figures left Istanbul for Doha, everything changed.

Qatar, like other threatened Arab states, in the Israeli security and intelligence mindset, is merely an intermediate gray area, neither neutral nor classified as an “enemy,” potentially a shocking target at a low cost. This is something all Arab decision-makers should be aware of.

From Tel Aviv’s perspective, Qatar is balancing contradictory roles, managing mediation, funding aid, and hosting parties that anger Israel without possessing a genuine deterrent umbrella. There are no international calculations that could prevent a surgical strike carried out within hours. Merely hosting an American base does not make Doha “immune,” but may even further tempt Tel Aviv, proving that decision-making in the region is no longer solely in Washington’s hands but in Tel Aviv as well.

In short, Israel needed a platform to send the biggest message since the Gaza war… so it chose the weakest link, amid the silence of its strongest ally.

Here, we can pause a moment at the Knesset member’s statement that the operation was “a message to the Middle East.” This is not a slip of the tongue, but a strategic doctrine upon which future decisions are based. Israel is telling all countries in the region that whoever harbors Hamas, or even engages in dialogue with it, will be next.

If the Arab states fail to take a firm political stand, the Doha precedent will be repeated elsewhere. It may not be Hamas’s mediation that stands accuse but rather the concepts of neutrality, balance, and even dialogue with parties Tel Aviv disapproves of and which then could become sufficient justification for a strike. It’s a policy of punishment.

This scene is posing existential questions for Arab capitals. If Qatar, Washington’s most important ally, is being bombed over the heads of its own people, after Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza… should we wait for Iraq’s turn? Riyadh? Abu Dhabi? Kuwait? And others? Does the American umbrella truly protect us, or is it used only when our interests intersect with Israel’s?

And what is the point of hosting American bases if they do not prevent airspace violations? Or provide protection?

What happened in Doha is pushing the region to crossroads: Either continuing its position of dependency and timid mediation, or repositioning strategically and developing independent air defenses, which is logistically difficult, or seeking alternative alliances (Ankara, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran?), and establishing red lines that Tel Aviv will not cross.

Qatar now faces difficult choices: Will it withdraw from the Hamas mediation? Will it demand real security guarantees? Will it go further, toward symbolic deterrence or unconventional partnerships? Or will it pay the price of protection once again?

Beware: A war of wills is beginning now. The Israeli airstrike in Doha was not just a blow to Hamas, but also a slap in the face to the sovereignty of the Gulf and the region, an undermining of the prestige of international law and its signed, ratified, and binding agreements, and an insult to the concept of the alleged strategic partnership with America.

This is the beginning of a new era, one in which Israel and Washington declare that the security of the region is no longer an Arab decision. The question now is: Will the Arabs as a whole wake up before “Ohana’s message” reaches other capitals? Perhaps.

The author is a political writer based in Amman Jordan and contributed this article to the Al Rai Alyoum Arabic website

Continue reading
Palestinian State and The Poker Game

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a politician above all else. He is dogmatist in rejecting a Palestinian state, and a pragmatist when he talks about it, but all that depends on the position taken by the United States. 

Ever since one can remember from the days of the Oslo Agreements, a Palestinian state, as a term swung between two conceptions: A future project on the ground, and a slogan up-in-the-air to pander on, and as many from my generation remember the rather acerbic comment: Gaza-Jericho First of 1993 which came to be the first and the last.

The Israeli government of that time, believed that it would bring the Palestinians to independenance as interlocutors in determining the occupied West Bank of Jordan that came about by discussing the issue through a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.

However, the little that was agreed upon started to be eroded by the first Netanyahu government, which at times implicitly and at times explicitly acted in the way so as to negate the Oslo agreements with impunity.

One would like to say that since then plenty of water has passed under the bridge, but when it comes to the Palestinian issue, it’s always the same water and the same bridge.

At this point one must say that everywhere in the media there are supposedly leaks and plans about the day after with regards to the Gaza Strip. However, the only consensus between the international community at large and officialdom of the Arab world, is that Hamas should surrender its weapons. But really what happens next?

Silence in the Arab world rules the scene which is in a way saying what cannot be said, which is in other words don’t involve us directly but we shall try to do what we can. This is habitually the Arab position in always being reactive rather than active.

And now on the international scene is the big drive to recognize a Palestinian state, which is for the time being affirming a point of principle, and towards which Israel is actually debating the annexation of the West Bank, as if to say, if the West Bank is reoccupied by Israel, where is this Palestine you want to recognize?

And adding insult to injury, the Washington administration has refused entry to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the PNA leadership to attend the UN General Assembly meetings. This indicates that it does not recognize that there is a leadership of the Palestinians.

However, and despite saying this, one wishes to be able to say that we might be jumping the proverbial gun, in the sense that, the issue is just a matter of tit-for-tat telling states: You recognize Palestine we take measures to counter that, but alas the Israeli annexation was contemplated long before the international recognition of a Palestinian state.

Now, what will it mean if Israel does go ahead and annexes the West Bank and cancels the Palestinian authority? Well, once again the international community, to the exclusion of the USA, will have to consider the West Bank as and Israeli occupied territory, and once again, the world will have to go back to the Security Council for an attempt to resolve the issue.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian columnist living in Paris, France.

Continue reading
What to Do About Hamas?

By Dr Khairi Janbek

The avowed declared intention of Benjamin Netanyahu, remains the destruction of Hamas, as he repeatedly says that the war against Hamas will not stop until it is totally disarmed and there will no more ‘Hamastan’.

This is while on the other side of the world is President Trump who is very much interested in a ceasefire and the release of the remaining hostages while blowing hot and cold in his habitual manner of ambiguity regarding the future of of the Islamic organization.

This may cause a divergence of views between Netanyahu and Trump in their up coming discussions, despite the fact that Trump went the extra mile as he threatened to withhold aid to Israel if Netanyahu is taken to court whilst Netanyahu responded by returning the compliment, saying that a couple-of-months ceasefire and the release of the living hostages as well as the dead bodies, are not mutually exclusive with the ultimate aim of destroying Hamas.

Admittedly, one always had one’s own doubts about the destruction of Hamas, probably because one always believed that the objectives of Israel’s foreign policy is to have a weakened PNA by Hamas and Hamas weakened by the PNA, which meant that neither should be destroyed, rather, to be weakened as circumstances required.

However, having said that, the most recent menacing Israeli government voices are talking about more dangerous developments, the first being taking control of the West Bank, which basically means either the end of the PNA or merely becoming an Israeli Bantustan administration, rendering the concept, let alone the fact, of a Palestinian state superfluous.

While the other development, is the call for Gaza , with or without Hamas, to be under a future Arab administration. Now which Arabs are going to be part of this administration is still unclear, but certainly the implications are clear, basically the financing of reconstruction which requires wealthy Arab participation, by default a participation of normalizing Arabs with Israel, with enough muscle to keep Hamas at bay, armed or otherwise.

In any case something may well be hammered in Washington when Trump meets Netanyahu, and the Arabs are bound to know its consequences.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris

Continue reading
Trump Slams Door on Netanyahu

Israeli Army Radio has reported that personalities close to US President Donald Trump informed the Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister, Ron Dermer, that the US president had decided to cut off contact with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Army Radio explained that these acquaintances close to Trump informed Dermer that Netanyahu was manipulating the US president, stressing that what Trump hates most is being perceived as being manipulated.

The radio quoted an Israeli official as saying that Minister Dermer’s conversation with senior Republican officials, did not work because of his displayed arrogance.

This came hours after a report in the Israel Hayom newspaper asserting that the US president is “disappointed” with Netanyahu and intends to take “steps” in the Middle East “without waiting for him.”

Since the start of his new presidential term on January 20, 2025, Trump has offered diverse and unlimited support to the Netanyahu government, which has been waging a genocidal war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023.

However, the Israel Hayom daily quoted an unnamed sources as saying that “there is a decline in the personal relations and mutual disappointment between Netanyahu and Trump.”

The newspaper added that two senior sources close to Trump said, in closed conversations in recent days, that he has decided not to wait for Israel any longer and is moving forward with steps in the Middle East without “waiting for Netanyahu.”

The sources did not elaborate on the nature of the steps Trump intends to take unilaterally, but there is a complaint in Tel Aviv that Trump sometimes acts without coordination with Israel.

The most recent example is the ceasefire agreement reached by the United States and the Yemeni Houthi group, which does not include Israel and which Israel was unaware of before its announcement according to Al Jazeera.

Continue reading
Trump’s War in The Red Sea

Dr Khairi Janbek

The US foreign policy in the Red Sea today is characterized by a robust military response to Houthi threats, aiming to protect critical maritime trade routes and assert influence in a geopolitical strategic area. While these military operations garnered international support, the ongoing conflict underscores the complexities and challenges of Middle East interventions.

The US military’s increased involvement in the Red Sea, including the deployment of two aircraft carriers, signals a commitment to ensuring freedom of navigation and countering the Iranians in the region. However, the present ongoing escalation also risks entangling the US in a prolonged conflict.

This is reminiscent of past Middle East engagements which the Americans should be well-aware of, and may put additional strain on the US military resources amid other pressing global priorities if faces.

That said, the present military strikes on Yemen are not just about the Houthis. They are also widely seen as demonstration of US strength towards the group’s main backer: Iran.

The Washington administration is currently locked in a series of negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear programme and Trump has not ruled out military action if those talks fail, yet, it is possible still, that the US, and judging by recent history, the Americans may change their mind and everything is put on hold yet again.

But we need to wait and see! The US has already moved its patriot and THAAD missiles from Asia to the Middle East, and only in the first month of the preparedness campaign, $200 million of ammunition has been used and this is making military officials greatly concerned about the impact on stocks the US Navy might use in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

At the same time, there are various Yemeni groups opposed to the Houthis with regional backing, and dare one say with some international backing, reportedly considering taking advantage of the situation to launch a ground campaign to oust the Houthis once and for all, but Washington is yet to make a decision on whether to back such operations or not.

Most analysts and officials say that, American troops participating in any ground operations in Yemen is highly unlikely, moreover, even more limited support for ground operations would still be another case of the US backing armed groups in a messy middle Eastern war; exactly the sort of situation Trump blasted previous administrations for falling into.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian analyst based in Paris, France.

Continue reading